No one has yet commented on the choice of the word "condone" in connection with adultry. First of all, I don't believe Islamic values "condone" adultry. But the problem is not the result of simply omitting the word "not" because while I believe Islam does "not condone" adultry, I don't think European values do either. I am not sure, but is not adultry grounds for divorce in Europe? Or, if currently Europe allows for "no fault" divorce without requiring a specific complaint, is it not the case that the adultry may motivate the other party to the marrage to seek a divorce?

Perhaps the author is confused as to the distinction between "condone" and "condemn"?

And on the putative distinction between Dutch and Flemish (or the lack thereof), please remember that they both have navies and therefore are different languages!

bnjtokyo wrote:And on the putative distinction between Dutch and Flemish (or the lack thereof), please remember that they both have navies and therefore are different languages!

So, according to this logic, people in the USA speak American and people in England English? There are differences between AE and BE, and we've got us a bunch of native speakers on both sides of the pond. Idem dito for Brazilian Portuguese and European Portuguese (and Portuguese spoken in the north of Portugal, Lisbon, etc. etc., ad infinitum)

I really think the situation is much more complex than just Flemish versus Dutch, and certainly too complex (and dynamic) for this kind of simple labeling, which comes down to 'it's or black, or white'.

In Flanders dialects are still overwhelmingly spoken. My native language sure isn't Standard Dutch. Frankly, i even hardly know people who were raised in Standard Dutch here in Flanders.
For me, a native speaker of language variant x doesn't need a formal training in order to speak that variant x. Native speakers, and i think by definition, speak their variant flawlessly from age 4 (?, or 5) on. If you need formal training to acquire another variant (the standard variant, for example), then your not a native speaker of that variant.

My impression is that most people here in Flanders are raised in either the local language or the dialect of the parents, often mixed with the local language). Most people who do speak standard Dutch only do so after a formal training.

I partially agree with Frank. Almost no one is raised in Standard Dutch, that's a fact. But the pure dialects in Flanders are slowly disappearing also. We're evolving towards some kind of sub-standard Flemish Dutch (the so-called "verkavelingsvlaams") with local accents. I suppose it has to do with the fact that more people move over greater distances, so that their children will end up with a very mixed up kind of Dutch.

My own language is certainly no dialect, and although I have a strong Brabants accent, there's a lot of Oost-Vlaams in there as well.

Spaceman Spiff

"The capacity for humankind to centralize its importance in the grand scheme of things is quite impressive."
- Tim Ward

On the one hand, you'll defend the ignorant spelling of "would of" in lieu of "would've", but on the other hand you'll declare that we must honor the formal name of a language as if it had some intrinsically pure value.

I think we all recognize that when it comes to languages, you have formal and informal, and written and spoken; and that degrees of fragmentation occur whenever a language spreads.

But even beyond that, we each speak and write our own personal language, by the limits of our abilities; I cannot reach into your mind and speak "your" language no more than you could mine. It is this limitation that requires that two individuals learn some common grammar in order to communicate.

In my case, I do speak English > American > Southern... And yes, I do distinguish between any dialect of British English and my own Southern American English, particularly when spoken. I have tried to watch "EastEnders" on BBC with the volume turned down late at night, and they might as well have been speaking Welsh or Dutch sometimes! Not that I'm complaining -- I love watching that show all the more because the producers do not try to "mainstream" the dialect each of the actors speaks.

But I have a feeling what you're really complaining about is government, and in particular, government meddling in culture through the use of labels. That's a whole nother barrel of apples.

tcward wrote:On the one hand, you'll defend the ignorant spelling of "would of" in lieu of "would've", but on the other hand you'll declare that we must honor the formal name of a language as if it had some intrinsically pure value.

Oh... then i think i didn't explain myself well. Anyway, it's got absolutely nothing to do with some sort of purity. But yes, i prefer a clear terminology, and maybe i exaggerate. Not that it's this important, but imho, 'Dutch' the most simple and yet linguistically adequate description in this context.

[BTW, i think i wrote other things about "would've"...]

But even beyond that, we each speak and write our own personal language, by the limits of our abilities; I cannot reach into your mind and speak "your" language no more than you could mine. It is this limitation that requires that two individuals learn some common grammar in order to communicate.

Agreed, but i see that 'common grammar' as a big place between two (shady) lines, not as one clear and distinct line, as some language purists wants us to believe. I find it peculiar that deviation from that highly imaginary 'clear and distinct line' is called ignorance.

Background:Belgium became independent from the Netherlands in 1830; it was occupied by Germany during World Wars I and II. It has prospered in the past half century as a modern, technologically advanced European state and member of NATO and the EU. Tensions between the Dutch-speaking Flemings of the north and the French-speaking Walloons of the south have led in recent years to constitutional amendments granting these regions formal recognition and autonomy. {Emphasis added} . . .

Ethnic groups:Fleming 58%, Walloon 31%, mixed or other 11%

. . .

Languages:Dutch (official) 60%, French (official) 40%, German (official) less than 1%, legally bilingual (Dutch and French)

Legislative branch: bicameral Parliament consists of a Senate or Senaat in Dutch, Senat in French (71 seats; 40 members are directly elected by popular vote, 31 are indirectly elected; . . .

note: as a result of the 1993 constitutional revision that furthered devolution into a federal state, there are now three levels of government (federal, regional, and linguistic community) with a complex division of responsibilities; this reality leaves six governments each with its own legislative assembly

. . .

Political parties and leaders:Flemish parties: . . .

Francophone parties: . . .

Dutch seems to refer to the language, Flemish seems to describe the people.

Regards//Larry

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." -- Attributed to Richard Henry Lee

Stargzer wrote:CIA Factbook:"Tensions between the Dutch-speaking Flemings of the north and the French-speaking Walloons of the south have led in recent years to constitutional amendments granting these regions formal recognition and autonomy. {Emphasis added}"Dutch seems to refer to the language, Flemish seems to describe the people.

And the CIA is always right .

But Tim, you wrote: "In my case, I do speak English > American > Southern... And yes, I do distinguish between any dialect of British English and my own Southern American English, particularly when spoken."I don't see a lot of difference between what you say about your language and me about mine...

Spiff:"Almost no one is raised in Standard Dutch, that's a fact. But the pure dialects in Flanders are slowly disappearing also."

IMHO, the supposed "purity" of dialects is also a fantasy... The 'pure' dialect of the city of Antwerp has an incredible amount of French words... so much for its 'purity'.